The concept of reach is having something of a moment. It seems as if when challenged on metrics like impressions or ratings, many practitioners, who surely should know better start pivoting towards reach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The other week I read somewhere about \u2018a crisis in reach.\u2019 There is no crisis in reach (if the media numbers bother you that much just go and buy a national OOH campaign), what there is on the other hand is a crisis in understanding what exactly the word \u2018reach\u2019 means. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
At risk of turning this blog into the Ladybird Book of Media Planning, let\u2019s go back to basics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reach is the % of the target estimated to have had an opportunity to see the campaign or ad at least once. It isn\u2019t a hard concept to grasp. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is hard, and what is therefore duly ignored is the notion that it really is not wise to compare apples to oranges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ask yourself, or indeed your favourite sale rep the following. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018You say I will reach 80% of my target with this video campaign. Can you explain what you mean by \u2018reach?\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Ah, so 80% will see my ad. How long for?\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018And if in my judgement 2 seconds is insufficient to get my message across, what proportion saw, say 10 seconds? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018And when you say \u2018see\u2019 what exactly do you mean? Is it they see the programme or block in which the ad appears, or the ad itself?\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018And does the number refer to the device, or the person using the device?\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The point is that the answers depend on where you are in the world (our US friends still largely speak of programme performance not ad break, or ad performance) and of course which particular channel is being used. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This goes back to the issue of definition. What is a viewer, and what criteria do you need to satisfy in order to qualify as one? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advertisers really don\u2019t care about reach, impressions, ratings except as staging posts along the way to sales. If \u2018x\u2019 reach leads to \u2018y\u2019 sales then great, but what matters at the end of the day is the \u2018y\u2019 sales. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further it may very well be that less reach, however defined but made up of exposures in quality environments that are not just \u2018seen\u2019 but noticed, is what really matters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I know it can be tedious delving back in history to make a point but when the great Mike Yershon sold his client Fiat on only advertising in centre breaks, in ITV\u2019s main news and only ever first in break, \u2018reach\u2019 was not the only concept on his mind. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mike and others like him knew well, rigorous research evidence or not, that noticeability counted and whilst it is easy to say if no-one has the opportunity to see the ad then by definition no-one could notice it, that assumes we cannot keep two concepts in our heads at the same time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a forthcoming asi podcast interview, my Crater Lake colleague David Beaton, from the advanced analytics business Navigation makes this point very well. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
David suggests that quality of exposure matters a lot when it comes to assessing eventual outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n